[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Ishayu]

The EU really is never trying to strongarm the UK. They are just trying to communicate that the UK cannot get a special deal, not because the EU does not like them anymore but because the EU already has so many other trade deals that if they budge for the UK they will ALL want to renegotiate. So the UK has to take a deal that is similar than what has been offered to other parties.

The UK is not in a similar conundrum because they already have to negotiate new trade deals with all third parties anyway.

The UK can't get a special deal because... why exactly? The EU is already a colossal beaurocracy full of asterisks to every bloody rule on the books. If they are trying to avoid exceptions and special deals, they've done a very, very bad job so far. Of course, the UK had a special deal to begin with as well, so clearly they can get special deals, which is interesting, no?

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how it works and you know it.

This quote doesn't make any sense. Surely a president of the Danish people sent to represent us on the world stage should be elected by the Danish electorate? If you disagree with that, may I ask why? Keep in mind, she has not gotten a minister position, she has gotten a presidential position, and she is also the only Dane capable of proposing legislation in the EU parliament. That's very important.

[Slant]

So why is it then the EU has said, the UK can either have an EEA/CETA type deal? Is there the free movement of people, goods and services between the EU and Canada?

Where did the EU say this?

- - - Updated - - -

The UK can't get a special deal because... why exactly?

Because there's nothing to warrant a special deal, really. The question isn't "Why can't the UK get a special deal?" since that implies the natural state of the UK is to get a special deal. It's not. The natural state of the UK is to get the same sort of deal everyone else gets. Because the UK isn't a special country that gets everything special. So the question you should be asking is: "Why should the UK get a special deal?"

And that's the question the rest of Europe is asking itself these days. And somehow, the UK doesn't provide an adequate answer.

[Noradin]

Okay, 5% of the people want her in this position. You can speak on behalf of those, but certainly not on behalf of the Danish people as an overall group. The Danish people overwhelmingly rejected her the last time they were asked.

They voted representatives in power knowing they would get to pick someone--and those picked her.
Just because you voted for other representatives the next election cycle does not mean their mandate was not valid when they picked her.

- - - Updated - - -

The UK can't get a special deal because... why exactly? The EU is already a colossal beaurocracy full of asterisks to every bloody rule on the books. If they are trying to avoid exceptions and special deals, they've done a very, very bad job so far. Of course, the UK had a special deal to begin with as well, so clearly they can get special deals, which is interesting, no?

Yes, they had special deals back when they were a member state (and see how that turned out) but they won't be a member state when this deal we negotiate comes into power. That's why it is called a "Brexit". Surprising, isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

This quote doesn't make any sense. Surely a president of the Danish people sent to represent us on the world stage should be elected by the Danish electorate? If you disagree with that, may I ask why? Keep in mind, she has not gotten a minister position, she has gotten a presidential position, and she is also the only Dane capable of proposing legislation in the EU parliament. That's very important.

If the representatives the Danish people elect to make these decision think that should be the case, then yes.
And gues what? they did. And she was indirectly elected by the Danish electorate.
Or do you claim you live in a dictatorship? Maybe because you weren't given the ability to turn back time?

[Kallisto]

Okay, 5% of the people want her in this position. You can speak on behalf of those, but certainly not on behalf of the Danish people as an overall group. The Danish people overwhelmingly rejected her the last time they were asked.

Her position is no different than the position of civil service that is in the UK and I bet Denmark has the same or something similar. These are completely unelected, selected by MPs and they are the ones who basically research, look into and write the legestlation. Governments then basically look over it and maybe alter it for themselves, put their names on it and put into a parliament vote. EU parliament works essentially the same way.

The only difference that national civil servants are hardly known, yet commision ones are. Also in both they are stuck at the whims of the elected MPs who can tell them to go fuck off with their ideas.

as for president on EU, many european nations in a parliamentary system have appointed presidents who are just there for the sake of having a president. Similar thing here.

[Gibblewink]

Thatcher was able to get her special deal because at the time all decisions had to be unanimous and because the UK was a central part of the not-yet EU. Zoom forward to the present day where the UK is rather less significant a partner and has increasingly diverged from the goal of an ever closer union shared by most of the major nations.
It is also worth noting that Thatcher's spacial discount has been quite poisonous for relations between EU nations

[Kallisto]

I think it should be pointed out that when Thatcher got the deal the UK was in a position that wasn't far off Greece at the worst time. Britain between the late 60s until basically 1990 was the sick man of Europe. There were issues up and down the country and it was mostly Europe bailing the fuck out of the UK that allowed it to finally get on its feet again.

[Mayhem]

A president represents residents, hence the name president.

I bet you're serously believing this.

[Slant]

I bet you're serously believing this.

If only we had an alternative explanation sitting in front of us. It is the presiding question, really. Alas, only doubt resides in my mind as to how to approach this. *sigh*

[Floopa]

good to see votes trying to trigger a 2nd eu ref or keep us in the eu are being voted down by parliament.

also good to see that if there was a 2nd eu ref (43% say there shouldn't be, 32% say there should), 56% of voters would vote leave, up from 51.9% in the last eu ref.

leaving is now the mainstream opinion, it's happening and it's a good thing. we should all embrace a global Great Britain free from the tyranny of eu-elites.

the best thing for Great Britain right now is to tell the eu to fuck off and we leave without a deal. they will panic and give us everything. they want trade talks to begin in march because by then a lot of eu businesses will move from london to frankfurt, if their allegiance with Great Britain is so weak then we should gladly let them leave.

[Mayhem]

the best thing for Great Britain right now is to tell the eu to fuck off and we leave without a deal. they will panic and give us everything. they want trade talks to begin in march because by then a lot of eu businesses will move from london to frankfurt, if their allegiance with Great Britain is so weak then we should gladly let them leave.

This makes about as little sense as possible, but hey why would you care, you've probably booked your flight to france already.

[Noradin]

This makes about as little sense as possible, but hey why would you care, you've probably booked your flight to france already.

And that's why it possibly does make sense, Floopa is hoping to make France more prosperous at the UK's expense.

[Floopa]

This makes about as little sense as possible, but hey why would you care, you've probably booked your flight to france already.

what's wrong with moving to another country if you are no longer proud of the country you were born and raised in.

this is the reality for many leave voters, me included. why would i want to be part of a country that puts business, eu/foreign investment and aims ahead of the Great British public's beliefs? i think immigration is great, but there needs to be correct parameters by which people come into the country. i think capitalism is great but there needs to be socially democratic methods to control the flow of capital in and out of a country. i think federalisation is wrong, i think each country should be proud of it's own sovereignty. these are the reasons people voted leave. we are happy taking an economic hit if we can take back control of our borders and laws.

[Noradin]

what's wrong with moving to another country if you are no longer proud of the country you were born and raised in.

Nothing much, unless you were part of the cause and actively worked to make it worse before leaving.

[Floopa]

UK trade w/ the eu is unsustainable. that's why we need to leave and forge our own trade deals.

[Kiri]

what's wrong with moving to another country if you are no longer proud of the country you were born and raised in.

this is the reality for many leave voters, me included. why would i want to be part of a country that puts business, eu/foreign investment and aims ahead of the Great British public's beliefs? i think immigration is great, but there needs to be correct parameters by which people come into the country. i think capitalism is great but there needs to be socially democratic methods to control the flow of capital in and out of a country. i think federalisation is wrong, i think each country should be proud of it's own sovereignty. these are the reasons people voted leave. we are happy taking an economic hit if we can take back control of our borders and laws.

What are the Great British public's beliefs, though? No sarcasm. But all you had was a referendum between a general stay or leave. But what is the public's opinion on the kind of leave? Soft Brexit or hard Brexit, deal or no deal? You and Dribbles always proclaim to know how the public in general feels, but where does that information come from? Because a majority voted leave and you are part of it?

[Mittens]

UK trade w/ the eu is unsustainable. that's why we need to leave and forge our own trade deals.

Germany lul.

[Floopa]

What are the Great British public's beliefs, though? No sarcasm. But all you had was a referendum between a general stay or leave. But what is the public's opinion on the kind of leave? Soft Brexit or hard Brexit, deal or no deal? You and Dribbles always proclaim to know how the public in general feels, but where does that information come from? Because a majority voted leave and you are part of it?

Polling afterwards by Yougov/Survation (trustworthy, called the 2017 GE correctly) will typically ask questions for why people voted leave. Immigration was a big reason, the economic hit was not a convincing argument. The NHS being able to receive more money (a complete lie) was a big reason. These things are documented, as are the current voting public thoughts on in/out of eu and yes/no on a second eu ref.

Germany lul.

the eu's entire purpose is to make germany arbiters of their own wealth. they dictate all the rules and all of the rules are in their favour.

[Mayhem]

what's wrong with moving to another country if you are no longer proud of the country you were born and raised in.

Nothing is wrong with that, but you are actively trying to get as much regulation in your way as possible. Sorry but that's a bit stupid if you ask me.

this is the reality for many leave voters, me included. why would i want to be part of a country that puts business, eu/foreign investment and aims ahead of the Great British public's beliefs? i think immigration is great, but there needs to be correct parameters by which people come into the country. i think capitalism is great but there needs to be socially democratic methods to control the flow of capital in and out of a country. i think federalisation is wrong, i think each country should be proud of it's own sovereignty. these are the reasons people voted leave. we are happy taking an economic hit if we can take back control of our borders and laws.

Uhm, you're neither taking back control of your borders nor of your laws and with becoming a smaller economy you make yourself weaker in trade talks.

Hate to break it, but you're not taking an economic hit to take back control of anything, you're taking an economic hit to becoming less influential and less desirable to invest in.

[Kiri]

Polling afterwards by Yougov/Survation (trustworthy, called the 2017 GE correctly) will typically ask questions for why people voted leave. Immigration was a big reason, the economic hit was not a convincing argument. The NHS being able to receive more money (a complete lie) was a big reason. These things are documented, as are the current voting public thoughts on in/out of eu and yes/no on a second eu ref.

the eu's entire purpose is to make germany arbiters of their own wealth. they dictate all the rules and all of the rules are in their favour.

Ah, so it was kept to general statements, I see. And it is funny that the whole 'the EU is Germany's tool' argument is still a thing, given the anti-EU rhetoric that has been going on here.

[Noradin]

UK trade w/ the eu is unsustainable. that's why we need to leave and forge our own trade deals.

Yes, best get rid of free movement of people and services and only leave free movement of goods (free trade agreements).
That will surely help the situation... oh wait...

Maybe you should look at the headline of that graphic you digged up and think for a few seconds?